Sen Jeffords on the Senate floor re: FMA (MUST READ!)

[Blue-Jay]

I apologize if this was posted before, but Jeffords hit a home run with these remarks!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Floor Statement From Senator Jeffords
On Federal Marriage Amendment


Mr. President:

I find it sad and unfortunate that the United States Senate is spending crucial time on this divisive issue, driven so obviously by partisan politics rather than sound public policy.

We know that this amendment has no chance of passage, so why are we here?

Why, just a week after Secretary Ridge detailed the real threats that our nation faces right here at home, are we instead debating the vague and questionable dangers to the institution of marriage? We should be working to fund homeland security, but that bill languishes while we launch into a culture war.

As of today, the Senate has passed only one of the necessary thirteen appropriations bills for fiscal year 2005. We need to fund veterans' health care, education programs, worker protection, job training, Head Start, environmental preservation, crop insurance, and food safety. We need to reauthorize our nation's welfare programs. Our highways crumble while the transportation bill is stalled.

These are the priorities of the American people, but instead of facing these most basic responsibilities, we are here today to make judgment calls about people's personal lifestyles.

So I must ask: Where are the priorities of the Majority Leadership? How is it that we have come to use the Senate floor as a warm-up for the political conventions, bowing to extreme religious agendas rather than the agenda of the American people? How did this happen?

I'm afraid the answer can be summed up this easily: we are here because of election-year posturing.

Mr. President, I find it ironic that some in this chamber want to amend our nation's most sacred and historic document because of some unfounded and irrational fear. It is ironic because these are the same people who have argued that we shouldn't trample on state's rights, yet they think our states are not capable of deciding how marriage should be defined.

I believe our states are not only capable but deserving of defining marriage in a way they see fit. Every state will bring its own approach, and I am proud of the way my state led the nation in addressing this issue more than four years ago.

Mr. President, the Vermont Legislature, a part-time body made up of farmers, teachers, business people and lawyers, passed the Civil Unions legislation that gave gay and lesbian couples all of the legal rights extended to married partners. And the Legislature did so in a bipartisan fashion, amid the rancorous protests by some who proclaimed Vermont's lawmakers would suffer dire consequences as the result of this decision.

I can tell you today that all of those fears have been unfounded and my home state is better for the experience. Having witnessed Vermont's approach, I beg to differ with anyone in this body who argues that states are not able to decide this issue for themselves.

Here in the Senate, we should be spending our time debating legislation that is inclusive, not exclusive. This body did so when it recently passed a Hate Crimes bill to extend the definition of hate crimes to those who are targeted solely on sexual orientation, gender or disability.

We should be focusing our energies on passing bills like the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and the Domestic Partner Health Benefits Equity Act. I am proud to support these bills, and I am even prouder because they continue in the great American tradition of inclusiveness, tolerance, and acceptance.

Mr. President, I will vote against this Constitutional Amendment and I urge the Majority Leadership to take up, rather than push aside, the critical pending legislation that so desperately needs and calls for our attention.

I yield the floor.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NAILED IT! Nice work, Jim.

[2Design]

1. rethugs aren't interested in any programs for the people who need

it because they are not the ones who will vote for them...

their rw xtian base is what vote for these BFEE fiends

[Blue-Jay]

2. kick?

I thought this was pretty good stuff.

/oh well...

[Rose Siding]

3. A principled Senator

He bore the name 'repub' when his state adapted the Civil Unions Bill. I don't know his position on the issue then, but it was a devastatingly contentious battle.

[jukes]

4. excellent speech

& a good spot by you. Tx.

love it when a senator brings them back to reality on the floor.






:bounce: